Masons are sworn to "persecute unto death anyone who violates
Masonic obligation. In the oath of the THRICE ILLUSTRIOUS ORDER of
the CROSS the candidate swears, as follows, "Light on Masonry,"
eighth edition, page 199: "You further swear, that should you know
another to violate any essential point of this obligation, you
will use your most decided endeavors, by the blessing of God, to
bring such person to the strictest and most condign punishment,
agreeably to the rules and usages of our ancient fraternity; and
this, by pointing him out to the world as an unworthy vagabond, by
opposing his interest, by deranging his business, by transferring
his character after him wherever he may go, and by exposing him to
the contempt of the whole fraternity and of the world, during his
whole natural life." The penalty of this obligation is as follows:
"To all and every part thereof we then bind you, and by ancient
usage you bind yourself, under the no less infamous penalty than
dying the death of a traitor, by having a spear, or other sharp
instrument, like our Divine Master, thrust into your left side,
bearing testimony, even in death, to the power and justice of the
mark of the Holy Cross." Upon this obligation I remark:

1. Here we have an explanation of the notorious fact that
Freemasons try, in every way, to ruin the reputation of all who
renounce Masonry. The air has almost been darkened by the immense
number of falsehoods that have been circulated, by Freemasons, to
destroy the reputation of every man who has renounced Freemasonry,
and published it to the world, or has written against it. No pains
have been spared to destroy all confidence in the testimony of
such men. Does not this oath render it impossible for us to
believe what Freemasons say of the character of those who violate
their obligations? Who of us that lived forty years ago does not
remember how Freemasons endeavored to destroy the reputation of
William Morgan, of Elder Bernard, of EIder Stearns, and also of
Mr. Allyn, and who that is at all acquainted with facts does not
know that the utmost pains are taken to destroy the reputation of
every man that dares to take his pen and expose their institution.
When I had occasion to quote Elder Bernard's book, in preaching on
the subject of Freemasonry a few months ago, I was told in the
streets, before I got home, that he was a man of bad character. I
knew better, and knew well how to understand such representations,
for this is the way in which the testimony of all such men is
sought to be disposed of by Freemasons. Will this be denied? What,
then, is the meaning of this oath? Are not Masons under oath to do
this? Indeed they are. A few months since I received the following
letter. For reasons which will be appreciated, I omit name and
date. The writer says: "About a week since, a man calling himself
Professor W. E. Moore, the great South American explorer, came to
this place, lecturing on Freemasonry. He is a Mason, and has given
private lectures to the lodges here, and has lectured once before
the public. He claims to have been at Oberlin, recently, and that
while there he had an interview with you, and that he tested you
sufficiently to satisfy himself that you had never been a Mason;
and further, he says that the conversation he had with you
resulted to his great satisfaction, and to your great
discomfiture." At nearly the same date of this letter, I received,
from the same place, a letter from a Freemason of my acquaintance,
giving substantially the same account of this Professor Moore. In
this letter, however, it is added that his conversation with me
compelled me to confess that I never had been a Mason, and to say
I would publish no more against Masonry. This last letter I have
mislaid, so that I can not lay my hand upon it. From the first I
quote verbatim et literatim. I replied to these letters, as I now
assert, that every word of what this man says of me is false. That
I never saw or heard of this man, to my knowledge, until I
received those letters. But this is nothing new or strange. Such
false representations are just what we are to expect, if
Freemasons of this and the higher degrees fulfill their vows. Why
should they be believed, and how can they complain of us for not
believing what they say of men who have renounced Masonry and
oppose it? It is mere folly and madness to believe them. It is not
difficult, if Freemasons desire it, to produce almost any amount
of testimony to prove that every manner and degree of falsehood is
resorted to to destroy the testimony of men who witness against
them. Any man who will renounce these horrid oaths, and expose
their profanity to the public, should make up his mind beforehand
to endure any amount of slander and persecution which the
ingenuity of Freemasons can invent.

In the degree of Knights Adepts of the Eagle or Sun, "Light on
Masonry," eighth edition, page 269, we have the following: "The
man peeping. By the man you saw peeping, and who was discovered,
and seized, and conducted to death, is an emblem of those who come
to be initiated into our sacred mysteries through a motive of
curiosity; and if so indiscreet as to divulge their obligations,
WE ARE BOUND TO CAUSE THEIR DEATH, AND TAKE VENGEANCE ON THE
TREASON BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TRAITORS!!!" Here we find that
Freemasons of this and the higher degrees are solemnly pledged to
destroy the lives of those who violate their obligations. Deacon
William A. Bartlett, of Pella, Iowa, in his public renunciation of
Freemasonry, says--"Letters on Masonry," by EIder John G. Stearns,
page 169--"During the winter or spring following my initiation, a
resolution was offered in the lodge for adoption, and to be
published outside the lodge, condemning the abduction of Morgan.
After much discussion, the Worshipful Master called another to the
chair, and said, 'Brethren, what do you mean by offering such a
resolution as this? Had we been at Batavia, we would have done
just what those brethren have done, and taken the life of Morgan,
because the oaths of Masonry demand it at our hands. And will you
condemn brethren for doing what you would have done had you been
there? I trust not.' When the vote to condemn them was taken, but
three voted in favor of the resolution." There is abundant proof
that Freemasons generally, at first, denied the murder of Morgan,
and when they could no longer have courage to deny it, they
justified it, until public indignation was so much aroused as to
make them ashamed to justify it. Let those who wish for proof on
the question of their justifying it read the volume of EIder
Stearns, to be had at the bookstores, and he will find evidence
enough of the fact.

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE
CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity
verification, its contents can be compared to the
original file at www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any
way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.